The man behind Ohio's gay marriage ban
Ohio Senator Jay Hottinger
Senate Building
Room #138, First Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
(614) 466-5838
"In closing, I would like to emphasize that this bill is not about grandstanding, gay bashing or demagoguery. It is about clarifying and protecting Ohio's definition of marriage between one man and one woman."
Sometimes I wonder if I just don't get life. I wonder if I'm just very naive. I understand that there are bigots in this society that hate us. I suppose I can even understand why some of them hate us. I try not to take it personally because I know that in 99% of the cases, their attitudes are based in ignorance. They hate gays, but many have never even met a gay person. They have nothing to judge from except what they've been told.
Sometimes, we encounter people who are more harmful. They are people who hate us, but are in a position of power. They use that position of power as a weapon against us. If they had their way about it and it didn't cost them a political price, I'm sure that many of them would like to outlaw us and put us in prison. I'm truly convinced of that. I'm convinced that there are monsters among us. Of course, we all know this. And, I'm not saying that the monsters are always against gay people. Just look at 9/11 and the monsters that attacked us that day. On 9/11/2001, we were all one people because it seemed as though we were united against the enemy of terror.
Now, the dust has settled, and memories of Osama bin Laden have faded. After 9/11, I never would have thought that gay people would be viewed as a bigger enemy against the norm of society than Osama bin Laden, but that is what has happened.
We see everyone going crazy and trying to pass laws all over the United States against our relationships and our families. The people behind these hateful and divisive laws say that they are defending marriage. What they are really doing is setting us apart from the rest of society. I should make a distinction that we are talking about civil marriage, as apposed to religious marriage. The laws that are being passed effect civil marriage and who can be married.
The Ohio senator who drafted the Ohio Defense of Marriage Act not only drafted a bill that defines marriage as being "between one man and one woman", but goes further in prohibiting civil unions or domestic partnerships from being legally recognized or formed. It also "prohibits the recognition in Ohio of same-sex marriages or civil unions entered into in other states or foreign countries."
MY RESPONSE SENT TO SENATOR HOTTINGER
Dear Senator Hottinger:
If your bill is not about gay bashing, why include in it a prohibition on civil unions? That would not even include the name "marriage". It seems to me that your real interest is denying gay couples any recognition what so ever in terms of the law.
That's very punitive and has nothing to do with marriage. I say that we need more honest politicians. Perhaps we need a bill on that. If you hate gay people so much that you feel that you just can't bring yourself to giving them anything, just say that. You would gain more respect by being honest and let your feelings known.
If your intentions were to "save marriage" from the gays, then do that by defining marriage as "one man, one woman". Only a gay basher would go further and prohibit gay unions or domestic partnerships. Your bill did not have to go that far to protect marriage.
SENATOR HOTTINGER'S COLUMN
As I write this week's column, it is the day after the Ohio Senate passed House Bill 272, the Defense of Marriage Act.
This is an issue I have been working on for the last seven years since I first introduced a Defense of Marriage Act in 1997 as a member of the Ohio House of Representatives. I also introduced it as a member of the Ohio Senate in 2000, but it was not until this week that the issue, currently sponsored by Representative Bill Seitz, was finally voted on by the Senate.
Recent events in other states, coupled with President Bush's support of marriage, finally brought this issue to the forefront.
Although I know some people may not agree with my support of the Defense of Marriage Act, the majority of constituents who have taken the time to contact me on this issue share my views. In order to further relay my thoughts on this issue, I would like to share with you the floor speech I gave on House Bill 272 in the Ohio Senate on Jan. 21, as follows:
I rise today in support of House Bill 272. It has been almost exactly seven years since I first introduced this legislation as a member of the Ohio House of Representatives. I am pleased that this body is finally considering this important issue today.
This is the fourth attempt to pass this bill, so it is an issue that has clearly been debated for some time now. Even last night, on national television in his State of the Union address, President Bush elevated both the importance and timeliness of what we are addressing today.
House Bill 272 is needed to clarify and protect Ohio's definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And that is what this bill is ultimately about -- clarification. It is much more a preservation of our traditional definition of marriage than a significant change in our public policy. It is in a nutshell the closure of a potential loophole in our state's statute on marriage.
Recent events like the court case in Massachusetts that ruled same-sex couples should be legally entitled to be wed, Vermont civil unions, and the legitimizing of same-sex marriages in Canada pose the threat that Ohio may have to recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions performed in other states or countries.
Due to the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 1), states must honor the policies of other states, such as marriages. For instance a husband and wife can be married in Pennsylvania under the marriage laws of that state, move to Ohio, and their marriage is still recognized. But same-sex marriages pose an entirely new issue, due to the fact that states like Ohio do not have any laws recognizing them, or specifically declaring them void.
In a 1934, Supreme Court ruling, Loughran v. Loughran, the high court held that each state is to give full faith and credit to marriages from other states, unless they are "declared void by statute" of that state. In other words, if a same-sex couple was to get married in one state and move to Ohio, Ohio could potentially have to recognize that marriage unless state law declares that same-sex marriages in Ohio are void. HB 272 will add this necessary language.
Another important case to note with this issue is Mazzolini v. Mazzolini. In this 1958 case, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled the state would have to recognize a marriage between first cousins which took place in another state. Even though Ohio law does not permit first cousins to be married, the court ruled that the marriage would have to be recognized because Ohio statute did not declare that a first cousin marriage was void.
A May 2000 research memo from the Legislative Service Commission also states, "the language of Ohio's marriage law might be considered by some courts to be inadequate to constitute a declaration that homosexual marriages are void in this state. Without explicitly deeming same sex marriages void, Ohio may have to recognize such marriages."
House Bill 272 therefore clarifies that same-sex marriages are against the strong public policy of Ohio, are void in this state, and the bill prohibits the recognition in Ohio of same-sex marriages or civil unions entered into in other states or foreign countries.
House Bill 272 will strengthen current language and uphold marriage between a male and a female. Ohio must be able to clearly establish and define its own laws, rather than have another state or country determine the way we define marriage.
Thirty-seven other states have adopted similar Defense of Marriage Act legislation ... now it's time for Ohio to pass it and become the 38th state.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that this bill is not about grandstanding, gay bashing or demagoguery. It is about clarifying and protecting Ohio's definition of marriage between one man and one woman.
3 Comments
Leave a comment
I'm not sure if beating my head against a post might be better use of my time. Of course a well timed letter to the editor during election time might be nice...
You're right, he is BSing you.
You could play hard ball with him. Ask him to reconfirm his position about the bill that it does not stop "civil unions" from occuring. If he agrees to that, I would quote what the sponsor of the bill said: "House Bill 272 therefore clarifies that same-sex marriages are against the strong public policy of Ohio, are void in this state, and the bill prohibits the recognition in Ohio of same-sex marriages or civil unions entered into in other states or foreign countries."
If he still thinks that the bill will allow civil unions, ask him if it's ok if you quote him on that in your letter to the editor.
I would write a letter to the editor of your largest newspaper, and send his office a copy of it. These guys hate bad press more than anything.
Turns out my rep. here in Ohio was a co-sponsor. The only response I could get was that "HB 272 does not prohibit legal relationships of individuals or couples it just protects the sanctity of marriage between a man and a women," which is clearly BS. A legal relationship of an individual? Like if I wanted to marry myself? And yes it does prohibit legal relationships - it makes mine illegal! Why did I think I could ask a question and get a real, intelligent answer?